## Facts

- Nabors Alaska Drilling, Inc. operated oil-drilling rigs on Alaska’s North Slope and adopted a drug and alcohol policy that required employee urinalysis testing.
- Clarence G. Luedtke and Paul M. Luedtke worked for Nabors on drilling rigs in a remote, safety-sensitive environment.
- Both employees refused to submit to urinalysis screening as required by company policy.
- Nabors terminated each employee for refusing the required test.
- The employees sued, alleging (1) violation of Alaska’s constitutional right to privacy, (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, and (4) common-law invasion of privacy.
- The superior court entered judgment for Nabors; the separate cases were consolidated on appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether Alaska’s constitutional right to privacy (art. I, § 22) applies directly to a private employer’s drug testing program absent state action.
2. Whether the public policy reflected in Alaska’s constitutional privacy clause supports a tort claim for wrongful discharge against a private employer requiring urinalysis.
3. Whether requiring urinalysis and terminating employees for refusal breaches the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the employment relationship.
4. Whether a required urinalysis program constitutes an actionable common-law invasion of privacy under Alaska law.
5. Whether termination for refusal to comply with a safety-related drug testing policy is permissible under at-will employment principles and related limits (public policy and good faith).

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the judgments for Nabors.
- The constitutional privacy clause did not create a direct claim against Nabors because Nabors was a private actor and no state action was shown.
- Alaska’s privacy clause could inform public policy for wrongful discharge analysis, but the terminations did not violate fundamental public policy given the strong safety interests in the work environment.
- Nabors did not breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by enforcing a safety-related urinalysis requirement and discharging employees who refused to comply.
- The urinalysis requirement and its implementation did not amount to a common-law invasion of privacy under the circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- Alaska’s constitutional right to privacy generally constrains government conduct and does not apply directly to private employers absent state action.
- Fundamental public policy can support a tort claim for wrongful discharge, and constitutional provisions may supply the public policy standard even when they are not directly enforceable against private parties.
- In evaluating wrongful discharge claims tied to privacy-based public policy, courts may balance the employee’s privacy interest against the employer’s and public’s safety interests; in hazardous, safety-sensitive work, safety interests may justify urinalysis testing.
- The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing applies in employment relationships but is not breached by enforcing a reasonably safety-related workplace policy without proof of arbitrariness, bad faith, or improper motive.
- Common-law intrusion-type privacy claims require an unreasonable or highly offensive invasion; workplace drug testing tied to legitimate safety goals may fall within permissible bounds.

## Conclusion

The Alaska Supreme Court upheld Nabors’ urinalysis drug testing program and the discharge of employees who refused testing, holding that the state constitutional privacy clause did not apply directly to a private employer, and that the employees failed to establish wrongful discharge, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, or common-law invasion of privacy in the safety-sensitive drilling context.


Luedtke v. Nabors Alaska Drilling, Inc., 768 P.2d 1123 (Alaska 1989)